arxiv: 2604.21555 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

Finding Meaning in Embeddings: Concept Separation Curves

Marc Ponsen, Paul Keuren, Robert Ayoub Bagheri

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords sentence embeddingsconcept separation curvesembedding evaluationsyntactic noisesemantic negationsconceptual stabilityclassifier-independentcross-lingual evaluation

0 comments

The pith

Concept Separation Curves evaluate sentence embeddings by comparing the effects of syntactic noise and semantic negations on their vectors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Concept Separation Curves to assess how well sentence embedding models capture core meaning. It does this by adding syntactic noise or semantic negations to sentences and quantifying how each type of change moves the embedding. The resulting curves visualize whether the model reacts more to surface variations or to conceptual shifts. This classifier-independent method allows direct comparison of embedding quality across languages, domains, and sentence lengths. Experiments in English and Dutch show the curves can distinguish stable conceptual encoding from superficial sensitivity.

Core claim

By systematically introducing syntactic noise and semantic negations into sentences and plotting the relative magnitude of their effects on embedding vectors, Concept Separation Curves reveal a model's capacity to maintain conceptual content separate from surface-level variations without relying on any downstream classifier.

What carries the argument

Concept Separation Curves, which plot the quantified differential impact of syntactic perturbations versus semantic negations to isolate conceptual stability in the embedding space.

If this is right

Sentence embedding quality can be assessed without training or using any additional classifiers or task-specific models.
Different embedding models become directly comparable on conceptual stability across English, Dutch, and varying sentence lengths.
The influence of sentence length on how embeddings handle meaning versus noise becomes measurable and visualizable.
Reproducible visualizations allow consistent tracking of how well models separate concepts from surface changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The curves could be used during model development to iteratively improve resistance to negation while preserving sensitivity to syntax.
Similar perturbation-based curves might be constructed for other embedding types such as document or code embeddings.
Adoption could shift evaluation norms away from task accuracy toward direct measures of meaning preservation.

Load-bearing premise

The relative effects of syntactic noise and semantic negations on embeddings can be measured and visualized in a way that cleanly isolates conceptual content from surface features.

What would settle it

If Concept Separation Curves produce overlapping or non-distinct patterns for embedding models that differ markedly on independent semantic benchmarks, or fail to replicate across additional domains, the method's ability to measure conceptual stability would be refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21555 by Marc Ponsen, Paul Keuren, Robert Ayoub Bagheri.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Concept Separation Curves. This example has been translated from the Dutch sentence "bevelen geven" (giving orders), which originates from the CompetentNL dataset. Initially, a set of perturbations is computed for a given sentence: a) surface-level perturbation, and b) semantic change. Following the process of embedding each sentence, the difference per vector is measured. The application of this proc… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Approach setup, square components are algorithmic processes. This setup summarises the pipeline: from text alteration to embedding and similarity computation. works across domains and languages. To evaluate our method, we aim to reduce the impact of other variables. The two variables we wish to isolate in terms of effect are language and sentence length. The amount of data available in a language has bee… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Depiction of the sentence generation process for the Fuzzing. Parts not visualised are the random shuffling. This sentence is translated from "beslissingen maken" from the CompetentNL source. Although this algorithm is identical for Negating and Fuzzing, the number of sentences it returns for both is not guaranteed to be the same. As depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Concept Separation Curves using Gaussian kernel density estimation on the CNL data and the GroNLP embedding model. This graph shows an overlap of 0.0221. already shown GroNLP. For instance, the FastText embedding, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: CNL data with FastText embedding. The overlap is 0.6652 The final pattern of note we discovered in our results is the sentence length effect. This effect is visible in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: ESS data with sBERT MPNET embedding. The overlap is 0.9810 (a) Unfiltered, 0.5168 (b) Filtered, 0.4632 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: LaBSE algorithm on PC NL data, in both its raw form and filtered to the short sentence lengths present in the CNL dataset. data are from the same domain and language. The only difference is the length of the sentences. The curves of the unfiltered, therefore longer texts, are less pronounced and thus more difficult to perceive. With even longer sentences, this effect is expected to worsen. As such, we see… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: CNL results (a) Fasttext (b) GroNLP (c) LaBSE (d) sBERT MPNET (e) sBERT RobBERTa (f) TFIDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: PC NL filtered results relatively small compared to one of the short sentence formats. As such, it follows the same pattern as the ESS questionnaire data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: ESS results (a) Fasttext (b) GroNLP (c) LaBSE (d) sBERT MPNET (e) sBERT RobBERTa (f) TFIDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: PC NL unfiltered results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Sentence embedding techniques aim to encode key concepts of a sentence's meaning in a vector space. However, the majority of evaluation approaches for sentence embedding quality rely on the use of additional classifiers or downstream tasks. These additional components make it unclear whether good results stem from the embedding itself or from the classifier's behaviour. In this paper, we propose a novel method for evaluating the effectiveness of sentence embedding methods in capturing sentence-level concepts. Our approach is classifier-independent, allowing for an objective assessment of the model's performance. The approach adopted in this study involves the systematic introduction of syntactic noise and semantic negations into sentences, with the subsequent quantification of their relative effects on the resulting embeddings. The visualisation of these effects is facilitated by Concept Separation Curves, which show the model's capacity to differentiate between conceptual and surface-level variations. By leveraging data from multiple domains, employing both Dutch and English languages, and examining sentence lengths, this study offers a compelling demonstration that Concept Separation Curves provide an interpretable, reproducible, and cross-model approach for evaluating the conceptual stability of sentence embeddings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper sketches a classifier-free way to plot how syntactic noise and semantic negations shift sentence embeddings, but supplies almost no numbers or implementation details to show the curves actually work.

read the letter

The central claim is that Concept Separation Curves can visualize the relative impact of surface changes versus meaning changes in embeddings without needing a downstream classifier. The authors generate syntactic variants that should preserve semantics and negations that should alter them, then measure embedding distances and plot the results. They report running this across English and Dutch, multiple domains, and varying sentence lengths, and say the curves look interpretable and reproducible across models. That framing is new enough on its own terms; prior embedding evaluations mostly lean on classification accuracy or similarity benchmarks, so avoiding the classifier confound is a reasonable goal. The cross-lingual and cross-domain angle is also a plus if the curves hold up. The main weakness is that the abstract states these demonstrations without showing any actual curves, distance metrics, perturbation generation rules, normalization steps, or statistical controls. The stress-test note correctly flags that the method only works if the syntactic perturbations truly keep meaning intact and the distance measure isolates conceptual shift; nothing in the provided text confirms either condition. Without those specifics or even a single quantitative result, the positive demonstration remains an assertion rather than evidence. This is the sort of paper that could interest people building or comparing sentence embedding models who are tired of task-specific classifiers. It might give them a new visualization idea to try. A serious editor should send it to review rather than desk-reject, because the idea is coherent and the authors appear to have run the experiments they describe; referees can ask for the missing details and checks. I would not cite it yet in my own work.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Concept Separation Curves as a classifier-independent method to evaluate sentence embeddings. It generates controlled syntactic perturbations (noise) and semantic negations, measures their relative effects on embedding distances, and visualizes the results to assess how well embeddings capture conceptual meaning versus surface form. The approach is demonstrated on English and Dutch sentences drawn from multiple domains and varying lengths, with the claim that the curves provide an interpretable, reproducible, and cross-model assessment of conceptual stability.

Significance. If the method can be shown to cleanly isolate conceptual change and if the curves prove reproducible across models, the work would supply a useful task-free alternative to classifier-based embedding evaluations. The cross-lingual and cross-domain scope is a positive feature. However, the absence of quantitative results, statistical controls, and reproducibility details substantially reduces the immediate significance of the contribution.

major comments (3)

[Results] Results section: the manuscript asserts a 'compelling demonstration' across languages, domains, and sentence lengths, yet supplies no numerical values for separation distances, no error bars, no statistical tests, and no actual plots of the Concept Separation Curves. Without these data the central empirical claim cannot be evaluated.
[Method] Method section: the procedures for generating syntactic noise and semantic negations are not specified (no examples, no algorithmic description, no parameters), nor is the distance metric, normalization, or aggregation method used to produce the curves. These omissions make the approach non-reproducible and leave open whether the perturbations truly preserve or alter meaning as intended.
[Evaluation] Evaluation: no baseline comparisons to existing embedding-quality metrics, no human validation of the conceptual/surface distinction, and no ablation on the choice of perturbation types are reported. These controls are required to substantiate that the curves measure conceptual stability rather than other embedding properties.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction repeat the phrase 'classifier-independent' multiple times; a single clear statement would suffice.
[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the embedding models, languages, and domains shown so that readers can interpret the curves without returning to the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes we will make to strengthen the manuscript's reproducibility, quantitative support, and evaluation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results section: the manuscript asserts a 'compelling demonstration' across languages, domains, and sentence lengths, yet supplies no numerical values for separation distances, no error bars, no statistical tests, and no actual plots of the Concept Separation Curves. Without these data the central empirical claim cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We agree that the Results section requires more quantitative rigor to allow proper evaluation of the claims. Although the manuscript describes and visualizes the curves, specific numerical summaries, error bars, and statistical tests were not included. In the revised version we will add a table of average separation distances (with standard deviations across runs and models), error bars on the figures, and appropriate statistical tests (e.g., paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests) to quantify the separation between conceptual and syntactic effects. revision: yes
Referee: [Method] Method section: the procedures for generating syntactic noise and semantic negations are not specified (no examples, no algorithmic description, no parameters), nor is the distance metric, normalization, or aggregation method used to produce the curves. These omissions make the approach non-reproducible and leave open whether the perturbations truly preserve or alter meaning as intended.

Authors: We acknowledge that the Method section is insufficiently detailed for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will expand this section with: concrete examples of syntactic perturbations and semantic negations; pseudocode describing the generation procedure; all parameter settings; the distance metric (cosine distance); normalization steps; and the aggregation procedure used to construct the curves. These additions will make the perturbation process transparent and replicable. revision: yes
Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation: no baseline comparisons to existing embedding-quality metrics, no human validation of the conceptual/surface distinction, and no ablation on the choice of perturbation types are reported. These controls are required to substantiate that the curves measure conceptual stability rather than other embedding properties.

Authors: We partially agree. The manuscript already demonstrates consistency across multiple models, languages, and domains, which provides an implicit form of comparative evaluation. However, we will add explicit baseline comparisons against standard metrics (e.g., SentEval tasks) and an ablation study on perturbation types in the revision. Human validation of the conceptual/surface distinction is a valuable suggestion; while our controlled perturbations are designed to isolate these effects, we will acknowledge the absence of direct human judgments as a limitation and outline plans for such validation in future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes a classifier-free evaluation method that introduces controlled syntactic noise and semantic negations into sentences, then visualizes their relative impact on embeddings via Concept Separation Curves. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions appear in the abstract or summary. The central claim rests on empirical demonstration across domains, languages, and lengths rather than any derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs or prior self-citations. The approach is presented as an independent visualization technique without load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes imported from the authors' own prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not mention any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5478 in / 969 out tokens · 41076 ms · 2026-05-09T21:49:20.266777+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Dependency-Based Self-Attention for Transformer

Deguchi, Hiroyuki and Tamura, Akihiro and Ninomiya, Takashi , year =. Dependency-Based Self-Attention for Transformer. Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (
[2]

Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

Attention is all you need , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=
[3]

2022 , month = dec, journal =

Evaluating the Construct Validity of Text Embeddings with Application to Survey Questions , author =. 2022 , month = dec, journal =. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00353-7 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00353-7 2022
[4]

Mission:

Kallini, Julie and Papadimitriou, Isabel and Futrell, Richard and Mahowald, Kyle and Potts, Christopher , year =. Mission:. arXiv , keywords =:2401.06416 , primaryclass =

work page arXiv
[5]

OpenAI blog , volume=

Language models are unsupervised multitask learners , author=. OpenAI blog , volume=
[6]

doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2004.09297 , urldate =

Song, Kaitao and Tan, Xu and Qin, Tao and Lu, Jianfeng and Liu, Tie-Yan , year =. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2004.09297 , urldate =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.09297 2004
[7]

Proceedings of the 58th

Ba. Proceedings of the 58th. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.417 , urldate =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.417 2020
[8]

GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding

Wang, Alex and Singh, Amanpreet and Michael, Julian and Hill, Felix and Levy, Omer and Bowman, Samuel R. , year =. arXiv , keywords =:1804.07461 , primaryclass =

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[9]

, year =

Dror, Itiel E. , year =. Cognitive and. Analytical Chemistry , volume =. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
[10]

and Varoquaux, G

Pedregosa, F. and Varoquaux, G. and Gramfort, A. and Michel, V. and Thirion, B. and Grisel, O. and Blondel, M. and Prettenhofer, P. and Weiss, R. and Dubourg, V. and Vanderplas, J. and Passos, A. and Cournapeau, D. and Brucher, M. and Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. , journal=. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in
[11]

2024 , url =

Liu, Xiao and Zheng, Yanan and Du, Zhengxiao and Ding, Ming and Qian, Yujie and Yang, Zhilin and Tang, Jie , year =. AI Open , volume =. doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2023.08.012 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2023.08.012 2023
[12]

List of wikipedias , author =
[13]

Wikipedia Statistics , author =
[14]

Wikipedia Statistieken , author =
[15]

Joulin, Armand and Grave, Edouard and Bojanowski, Piotr and Mikolov, Tomas , year =. Bag of. arXiv , keywords =:1607.01759 , primaryclass =

work page Pith review arXiv
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01852 , year=

Feng, Fangxiaoyu and Yang, Yinfei and Cer, Daniel and Arivazhagan, Naveen and Wang, Wei , year =. Language-Agnostic. arXiv , keywords =:2007.01852 , primaryclass =

work page arXiv 2007
[17]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.2001.06286 , urldate =

Delobelle, Pieter and Winters, Thomas and Berendt, Bettina , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2001.06286 , urldate =. arXiv , keywords =:2001.06286 , primaryclass =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.06286 2001
[18]

BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

Devlin, Jacob and Chang, Ming-Wei and Lee, Kenton and Toutanova, Kristina , year =. arXiv , keywords =:1810.04805 , primaryclass =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[19]

and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and

Virtanen, Pauli and Gommers, Ralf and Oliphant, Travis E. and Haberland, Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cournapeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Weckesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and. Nature Methods , year =
[20]

2010 , month = may, journal =

The Concept of Validity in Theory and Practice , author =. 2010 , month = may, journal =. doi:10.1080/09695941003693856 , urldate =

work page doi:10.1080/09695941003693856 2010
[21]

ChatGPT MT: Competitive for High-(but not Low-) Resource Languages

Robinson, Nathaniel R. and Ogayo, Perez and Mortensen, David R. and Neubig, Graham , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2309.07423 , urldate =. arXiv , keywords =:2309.07423 , primaryclass =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07423
[22]

Zero-shot Sentiment Analysis in Low-Resource Languages Using a Multilingual Sentiment Lexicon

Koto, Fajri and Beck, Tilman and Talat, Zeerak and Gurevych, Iryna and Baldwin, Timothy. Zero-shot Sentiment Analysis in Low-Resource Languages Using a Multilingual Sentiment Lexicon. Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024

2024
[23]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding , author=. Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers) , pages=

2019
[24]

International conference on machine learning , pages=

Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav) , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2018 , organization=

2018
[25]

A Survey on

Zong, Mingyu and Krishnamachari, Bhaskar , year =. A Survey on. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2212.00857 , urldate =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.00857
[26]

Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)

Kim, Been and Wattenberg, Martin and Gilmer, Justin and Cai, Carrie and Wexler, James and Viegas, Fernanda and Sayres, Rory , year =. Interpretability. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1711.11279 , urldate =. arXiv , keywords =:1711.11279 , primaryclass =

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.11279
[27]

de Vries, Wietse and van Cranenburgh, Andreas and Bisazza, Arianna and Caselli, Tommaso and Noord, Gertjan van and Nissim, Malvina , year =
[28]

2022 , eprint =

Wang, Hao and Li, Yangguang and Huang, Zhen and Dou, Yong and Kong, Lingpeng and Shao, Jing , date =. 2022 , eprint =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.05979 , url =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.05979 2022
[29]

, author=

Validity Challenge in GenAI Models: Evaluating the Validity of Content Generated by Text-to-Image Models in the Context of Social Studies Education. , author=. Journal of Pedagogical Research , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

2025
[30]

2025 , organization =

concept - Dictionary Definition , url =. 2025 , organization =

2025
[31]

Postgraduate Medical Journal , volume=

ChatGPT prompts for generating multiple-choice questions in medical education and evidence on their validity: a literature review , author=. Postgraduate Medical Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[32]

Want To Reduce Labeling Cost? GPT -3 Can Help

Wang, Shuohang and Liu, Yang and Xu, Yichong and Zhu, Chenguang and Zeng, Michael. Want To Reduce Labeling Cost? GPT -3 Can Help. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021. 2021. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.354

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.354 2021
[33]

Fine-grained Analysis of Sentence Embeddings Using Auxiliary Prediction Tasks

Adi, Yossi and Kermany, Einat and Belinkov, Yonatan and Lavi, Ofer and Goldberg, Yoav , year = 2017, month = feb, number =. Fine-Grained. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1608.04207 , urldate =. arXiv , keywords =:1608.04207 , primaryclass =

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1608.04207 2017
[34]

Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics , pages=

Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data , author=. Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics , pages=